it seems to calm your fat cells. the 2% fat milk seems to be better off if you want to lose weight. that is why giving people a diet soda does not help you lose weight. your brain is march. i am looking for the good stuff -- nutrients. -- your brain is mart. this is one of the best examples. if you wait until you're hungry to sit down and eat, you will have over the course of 30 minutes three times more than you want to eat. it takes 30 minutes for it to come back to normal. 30 minutes, you can do a lot of damage. you should never sit down when you are hungry.

you should always have nuts. those 100 calories will dramatically -- he will not be creating a food that is in front of you anymore. these are simple ways for us to nudge the biology of blubber and the right direction. sedentary lifestyle? if you sit -- your mortality rates increase is 11%. it is important because it avoids frailty. if i got rid of all the can see in america, we would live in average of 2.8 years longer.

that is it. a little more than two years longer. what kills people is not the cancer, it is there too frail to whether the treatment or recover after word spread same for heart disease. we go around the world where people live a long time. what do you do about it? you have to push yourself. look in the wild. when you do not push yourself, you end up with a bony problems. osteoporosis. you have medications for it, but they are expensive. they do not work as well as resistance training. getting people to recognize it means reminding them what they used to do. here is a cheetah chasing its prey. watch what happens.

ask yourself -- when was the last time you went at full speed? when was the last time you gave it everything you had? our bodies were designed to do that. our average fitness at age 17 is the same as age 65. although we peak in our physical ability at age 27, our ability to indoor activities -- indoor activities at the age of 17 is the same at 65. we have the ability to sweat and breathed in a way -- we have that ability. but we have forgotten that. we have to chip away at the extra cost that holds us back. -- crust that holds us back.

we have about 200 people who work on the program. we pull together -- i will go through some best practices. you can take, and began to use. texas has a big texas from debt initiative. these big competitions that are organized. one school will fight the game for another company or school. online training opportunities are huge. we started the show, we started a web business. that website gets about 100 million page views a month now. part of the reason is there is a voracious appetite for unadulterated health information. give the information they trust for the department of defense approached us and we are building the fitness portion of

the army's website. this is what all of our veterans will be using that law allows them and their families and employees of the military to benefit from a slew of different tools. no advertising on the site. these are buildable endeavors. the infrastructure exists. if you do nothing else, take the real age test. it will tell you how old your body thinks you are. nobody cares about your chronological age. the real age test, based on 30,000 articles, is a test that we have the helps to define that. every single individual needs a barometer of how they're doing. we have ways of getting people recommendations. social media tools to give you a vice. when you get sick, you ask your friends how to manage it.

if the military is building them for our soldiers, we can use some for our state employees. california has a let's get to help the task force designing a long-term plan. they build their on-board of health. i think you should think about this. how we assess, how we gauge how help the we are are the numbers we will play against. let's figure out how we will graded and then keep score. that's-board -- that dashboard, it is a clever way and how to agree on a common set of ideas. we create a little biopsy of the community. we can give us a report card back to the mayor or the governor of the states. because those governors care about the people in their states

and appreciate the bigger scale of the issue when you are not healthy, they can use that as an of to push through changes. in california, it was a big issue because disparities were costing them a lot of money. in new york, it is more about the city of new york than the state of new york. the smoking bans which did not help -- did not hurt businesses. when everybody knew the rules, all the bad restaurants shifted over. -- all the restaurants shifted over. this allows a more sophisticated way of dealing with the socialized costs so will we can share them more easily. if you create rules that everyone can follow, they will all do the right thing. otherwise, people will cherry pick and profits accordingly. i personally think each state will have to find their own way of going on this path.

it is worth putting this in a document. asked mike bloomberg if this is good or bad. if we're talking about the impact of sodas comment that was worth the risk politically to get that conversation going. there are many other states. fantastic improvement in some of the major urban areas like philadelphia. when you look at this places, they are simple things done well. real food, social infrastructure, mich.-as its 4x4 tool. what little to do all of view, it ought to be about second opinions.

it is not about the doctors not been good. only 10% of americans get second opinions for medical care. we have seen that roughly a third of the time, a second opinion will change the diagnosis or your therapy. think about that. the difference between real operatives back surgery in boston and houston is tenfold. how can the exact operation occurred 10 times more often than another? it cannot be a tenfold difference. second opinions -- why don't people get second opinions? a minor procedure is a procedure for somebody else. if it is a procedure on you, it is not minor. that is the mindset. one of the things a lot of states is -- it is in 14 states

and the district of columbia. it is basically the peace corps. the peace corps was created and the basic concept was take energetic college kids give them a month or two of training and take them off to botswana and build the dams. we take those same college kids and we put them through a month course about how to teach about health. we put them in school systems around the country. they teach the kids about what to eat and a share with the kids how to get better exercise. what they really do is to give the kids mental resilience. that is what health is all about. if people can control what is happening in their bodies, they can change the world outside their bodies. if they cannot even take care of their own habits, happening make

a difference in your health stocks when kids your that message, it resonates with them. kids sharing in sides with them about the world. all of a sudden, the big conversation happened and they will change what they do in their lives. it is a very inexpensive program. it cost about $0 per kid. -- a cost about a dollar per kid. it is privately funded with a lot of public partnerships. it allows us to thrive and play a role and give you a model, an army of young people who will go on to their parents and fight with them anyway, but they (the refrigerator and they say mom, what gives? simple things that allows the conversation to take place. instead of kids being the achilles' heel, they become the

backbone. we take organs into the schools. we work with in the teachers' unions in order to get these volunteers to play an active role. they take these kids do life changing wakening of how critical, how vital the temple of the soul is. how do i drive this point,? let me leave you with a couple of action steps. this is a playful path to health. i am in 30 rockefeller center. we have a lot of input on comedy issues. change your state song to a workout routine. start a potato chip buyback program similar to a gun swap. pass a constitutional amendment

on marriage requiring a certain number of steps. there are some simple tips that i think banks that -- makes sense. in this room, at the brightest people will know that change the way we do held in our states. we will win the battle for health in our kitchens and living rooms and bedrooms. i think you should have your own health dash board. business was to play a role. when i first brought help court to the leadership of new york, the first question -- my question was about the logistics. they said, we do not know how to get the private sector involved. one of the biggest business leaders -- how did they get involved? it is really hard.

i want to use your dmv. the new jersey state dmv to message organ donation. we are creating psas to go out in nicolay and celebratory way and get the folks realize that organs cannot go to heaven with you and get people to donate. it is a simple concept. the thought dawned on me that the unique ability to message to people. you have all the information. people open their dmv mail. you can give them tips that are valuable to them. those messages might be valuable. we can extrapolate from -- i welcome to up in the states that well desire that as well. junk food free zones ought to be part of that. he reached out about the governor's olympics.

-- you each ought to have a governor's olympics. simple things like that that allow teachers to have an excuse to talk to the kids about health. this could happen from business to business as well. when these folks celebrate, a 10th grade teacher will get their kids to measure how much they walk. when you go home today, what should you do? you should think about 15 minutes physicals. your local hospital will find these. it's been screened thousands of people for almost nothing and you allow a conversation to take place. it is not scary. almost everybody has a job, but a lot did not have insurance.

given the way of calling back at of the abyss and given an opportunity. they do not have the right to help, but they have the right to access. health court is out there. the first lady -- you know about these. it is inexpensive, it is customized, and it you should be -- it should be your program in your state. i do not think you ought to hire smokers. it is indispensable for us to spend 15% more money at the same time letting people hurt themselves. we have to be smarter than this. we have a solution that will be complex that will work. find out ways of making its

legal for employers not to have to hire a smoker. i want to hire you, but i cannot do it. i think that message will resonate. as opposed to the finger wagging. finally, keep nuts in your pockets. thank you very much. [applause] >> questions? >> i know we to do this for a very long time. we have to keep moving. >> i will start calling on people. one of the women asked about the single most important thing to do for longevity.

it is more sexual activity. and then mr. and asking very pointed questions. we started delving into the reality of 80% of the time when there is a reptile dysfunction, it is physical, not men so. the average -- mental. the average american is in cement once a week. if we could go from once a week to twice a week we would increase your life expectancy three years and would be a lot more fun. that is your goal when you go home. go from once to twice a week. it should be very sustainable. >> all of the founders, primary concern with was national can -- national security. what would they say about a company such as lockheed?

based on how they acted in other instances, they would have favored a bailout of lockheed because it supplied the united states at the time with its top fighter jets and its top reconnaissance airplanes. i think you can make an argument that they would have supported the bailout of chrysler back and the 1980's, but not the bailout of chrysler today. what is the difference? chrysler made tanks back then. they were our only tank manufacturer and when chrysler comes out of debt and repays the government loan, the main way they do so is by selling off the tank division and plow that money back into the company. >> author and university of dayton professor will take your calls, e-mails, and tweets on the founding fathers and other key events in american history.

live sunday at noon eastern. >> john kerry is on his first overseas trip as secretary of state. he spoke with reporters in london for half an hour. >> it is a great honor to welcome the 68 secretary of state of the united states of america. >> senator kerry, we are delighted that you have chosen here for your first trip overseas.

and to pay tribute to the immense experience he brings to his new role. we have had detailed and thorough talks covering their range of affairs from the middle east and the importance we both attached to ending the israeli- palestinian conflict. i welcome the focus he has brought to bear on this issue. there is no more urgent priority than restarting negotiations between the israelis and palestinians. that region of the world can't afford the current dangerous impasse. if we don't make progress very soon, that two-state solution might be impossible to achieve. there is a burning need to revive the peace process. supported by european, arab, and other nations.

i know that mr. kerrey will make every effort to analyze and make decisive moves for peace. i welcome president obama visit to the middle east this spring. the secretary and i plan to meet this week, an appalling injustice has been done to the people of syria that the world cannot ignore. we discussed the vital need for political transition. we agree that for as long as political solutions are blocked, the international community has a responsibility to take steps to prevent the loss of life in syria. it includes the terrible loss of life we have just witnessed in aleppo.

that is why it we believe we must significantly increase our support for the opposition. and we are preparing to do home humanitarian relief effort. in the face of murder and threats and instability, our policy cannot stay static as the weeks go by. it is an important opportunity to discuss this with our allies and partners. our countries agree that iran poses a threat to the peace and security of the world. talks will take place in kazakhstan this week. this will be an important year for afghanistan as troops stand shoulder to shoulder. i've briefed secretary kerry and

we have discussed progress for the year ahead. we will continue a robust and intelligent response to the threat of international terrorism. we reviewed the situation in mali and somalia, and it has led to significant progress on the ground. our second conference in may which will support the rebuilding of armed forces, police, coast guard, and public finances. we also discussed the british priorities for the areas of trade and transparency. i look forward to hosting the foreign ministers to focus not only on immediate threats but longer-term challenges including the need to shatter the culture of impunity for those that use sexual violence

as a weapon for war, which is my personal priority this year. and finally, we reiterate our commitment to the transatlantic trade and agreements that would not only support jobs and growth, but would be a much- needed boost for the world. i welcome the proposal for a transatlantic trade. but just as our strategic cooperation on foreign policy is intense, so as our economic length. we are invested in each other's economies. the united states is the single largest investor in the united kingdom. i look forward to working with

the secretary over the coming months and years, and now invite him to make his remarks. >> thank you very much, mr. foreign secretary. we want to thank the foreign secretary for the tremendous hospitality that he has shown me here today and my team. i also appreciated the act earlier to be able to meet with prime minister cameron over breakfast. it is always a great pleasure for me to be able to visit london, and it is no accident that this is the first stop on my trip as the secretary of state. many years ago as a young child, i managed to get lost in london. i want to thank somebody for finding me. this day, i must say, was made much easier.

it was impossible for me to get lost. i am particularly pleased to be able to be here with the remarkable partner that is the united kingdom. when you think of everything that bind the united states and great britain, our common values, our shared history, ties to family home, both personal and friendship. there is a reason why we call this a special relationship, really, a partnership of the heart. in the twentieth century, our countries fought for freedom side-by-side. have fought for survival. together, we thrive in war, in peace, and we stood together to meet the world's great challenges. we may face new and more

complex challenges, but he why absolutely know that we face them together just as we did in the last century. and together, it is clear that our partnership remains stronger than ever. as the foreign secretary made clear, we discussed the agenda today that reflect the many benefits and the relationships that bring both of our peoples of the world together from counter-terrorism to creating jobs, advancing our shared values. that is no small endeavor or commitment. we discussed our agreement, i think that historic agreement. and hopefully, historical and we accomplished it.

the u.s., europe, transatlantic trade, growing prosperity on both sides of the atlantic. it is no secret that we both face economic challenges. we all do in this global marketplace and this challenging marketplace. europe alone is the largest economy in the world.

when you join that with the united states of america, we have a powerful ability to be able to affect the rules of the road and raise standards, most importantly, creating jobs for all of our people. europe is already america of's largest trading partner. this will create additional jobs for investment. president obama made it clear this is a top priority for the united states. we also discussed the responsibility to support fragile democracies across the world from libya, tunisia, and beyond. it is in our mutual interest. i want to thank the president for the important leadership. showing the support for libya. i think he and the people of the united kingdom can be proud. william and i agreed that the

syrian people deserve better than the horrific violence that threatens the everyday lives of innocent people, people wanting their government to be accountable and part of their own lives. the regime has rained down rockets, and that is just the latest example of brutality. we condemn this indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and we condemn it in the strongest terms. it is just further evidence assad has to go. i think william for the effort to help dial up the pressure on the regime, for their

contributions of humanitarian aid and hosting the transition conference last month. let me make clear that we will continue to work closely with british allies to address the growing humanitarian crisis and the support of the syrian opposition council. we are coordinating with the syrian opposition coalition, coordinating with the un and with others in order to help give relief to the victims that need better health. william and i also discussed a couple of occasions. like iran's nuclear program. as we have said again and again, iran with a nuclear weapon in that region, given all that has happened, it is simply unacceptable. we have stated they will not obtain a nuclear weapon. president obama has been crystal clear about this.

as we have repeatedly made clear the window for a diplomatic solution, we simply cannot remain open forever. but it is open today. it is open out that there is still time. but there is only time if iran makes the decision to come to the table and negotiate a good faith. we negotiate in good faith and mutual respect to avoid whatever terrible consequences could follow failure. the choice is in the hands of the iranians, we hope it will make the right choice. we discussed our partnership in afghanistan and i want to thank all of the people of great britain that i know have been patient and carried this enormous challenge with a certain degree of restraint. and obviously a great degree of commitment. we are grateful for the sacrifices of your people and

the contribution of your remarkable troops. we need to continue to remain in close coordination as we tackle this upcoming transition. finally, hire appreciate deeply william's and the u.k. hosea unwavering support for that goal. we share a vision as a think people do, to states living side by side in peace and security. we talked about how we can support two parties reaching that end, because that is the only way to achieve lasting peace. i look forward to continuing to work with william on these issues and so many others, i might comment that i know president obama is looking forward to his visit to the region in an effort to try to begin to make decisions.

the secretary in the long history of our partnership and our collaboration, the united states and great britain, which have made our country stronger and the world more stable and secure. we can be proud of that and we understand that we come with a special commitment to do our work to make our world safer, more stable, a place of greater opportunity and peace for all people. i personally thank you for your friendship, thank you very much. >> we are going to have

questions? >> policy towards the falkland islands. the forthcoming referendum, should be respected. >> let me be clear with our position. first of all, i am not going to comment, nor is the president, on a referendum that has not taken place. our position has not changed. the united states recognizes the fact the u.k. administration of the islands but takes no position on the question of sovereignty claims thereto. we support argentina on practical matters and we continue to urge a peaceful resolution of that critical issue. i think that is exactly what our

position has been. we look forward to the future. >> [inaudible] >> why should the syrian opposition leaders want to meet in rome or other international meetings given the fact that they have not gotten the help they have sought. secretary clinton and secretary panetta recommended farming some of the rebel groups. a static policy cannot remain. at this stage, isn't it time to

revisit the policy, and i want to ask what you mean by the policy? with the u.k. like to see the united states take a more forward-leaning policy towards arm and the rebels and giving them some help in our main, training, or other kinds of support? is there a way that the regime can be displaced given russia's support military and otherwise? >> i will answer your first question and let the secretary answer questions two, three, and four. why should they come and meet?

because countries have been helping them and because we are precisely meeting to determine how to help assad change the calculation on the ground. i have said that he needs to be able to change his calculation. president obama has been engaged in examining the way that we may be able to contribute to that. that is the purpose of this meeting in rome. i would urge syria opposition to join us as a matter of practicality and informing us. i would say to them ahead of time that in our discussions

today, in washington, which prompted us to accept this meeting with a new secretary of state that a beginning moment of the second term, president obama has expressed concerns about it. this moment is right for us to be considering what we can do. we understand that the syrian people want to see results in this conference. i would say, so do we. the best way get those results is to join us, the part of this discussion, and together, working as we did today with our other friends, i am quite confident to be able to come up with what has happened.

what has happened in aleppo, human rights abuses, it seems to me that it is pretty hard to understand when you see missiles falling on the innocent people, it is possible to take their notion that they are ready to have a dialogue. that is why we think it is important to get together to hear directly from the opposition, to know precisely what they think would be the most useful at this point in time, and how we might be able to make a difference. that is an important meeting, an important discussion that they will be able to make the decision to come and join us. >> i support what the secretary has said, there is a feeling of great frustration that is not surprising. more than 70,000 people have been killed.

and there has been no sign of a political or diplomatic break. our frustration is intense, as well. and of course, to bring humanitarian assistance that we can possibly bring, it begins that background, our policy is ecstatic, but it will have to change and develop. visiting lebanon last week, i saw the importance of that. you see terrible human cost of this conflict and the mounting danger of greater instability in neighboring countries. it is not an issue that the world can ignore. we agreed last week in the european union and we are tying

down the details of the amendments to the european union arms embargo and sanctions. we will go on from that to put forward a new package of assistance in line with that agreement. it will take a little time to put together a consultation with our partner. it is important what we can most effectively do, whether that be rome or other occasions, depending on if they decide to attend that meeting. >> secretary of state, he said you had new ideas on syria? he said the time is right to consider what more we can do. tell us what you're going to do. what about weapons being seen

among the opposition? if you are seriously thinking of harming the opposition, what about the jihadi threat? >> i have not said anything about what we are specifically planning to do because we owe it to our friends and allies to discuss those things with them first. i don't think they should be reading about options in the newspaper, with all due respect. there will be a moment for our decision at that moment is after we have a meeting in rome that is not today. we have been discussing options, and i will not go into what they might be at this point in time. i will be going from here to berlin, i will be meeting with the foreign minister and subsequently going to paris,

meeting with the foreign minister and going to rome. allow us to consult and have the opportunity to exchange views about what is possible. i want our friends to know that we are not coming to rome simply to talk. we are coming to make a decision about the next steps and perhaps other options that may or may not be discussed further after that. if we get through these consultations and other productive meeting, hopefully we will have something to be able to announce to you. >> with all due respect, for two

years, we have heard american politicians and cabinet secretaries tell us that the situation is unacceptable and nothing has changed. little has changed with u.s. policy. we have seen humanitarian aid, but not much more than that. the eu is providing non-legal aid, i am wondering if the u.s. is considering this? and if you are ceding influence for the ron. afghanistan has asked u.s. troops to leave the province and i think within two weeks, can we get your comment on that? >> with respect to afghanistan, i understand the concerns they have expressed. appropriately, when a complaint they may have thought to be

appropriately evaluated. they will be, i assure you. i have taken appropriate note and i have had a great deal of involvement in afghanistan with president karzai. there are evaluations of how things might have gone wrong or might have changed. we are working on a bilateral security arrangement and this transition process. we have had a very good conversation with the president. president obama talked to him before making announcements. we have listened very carefully to his observations about wanting to speed up the transition with respect to management of security. i can assure you that we are finely attuned to the needs of the afghan people, and the most effective ways to make this transition with our allies that

have spent their treasurer in a way that is most effective. i am not surprised by the request, it is something that we will deal with initially, and everything in our power to affect this as sensitively as possible. if we don't, it will not work properly. with respect to syria and the frustration you just articulated, they are sensitive to that frustration. i was a member of the senate and one of the voices on the outside pushing for one thing and another. i understand that the reason people question, the getting a fresh turmoil with the president -- term with the president.

he has sent me here at throne, he is here and concerned about the course of events. he is evaluating precisely what steps will take. again, i am not going to say to you today what my reaction is or is not. that is what these consultations are about. let's have the consultations. i am listening closely and we had a very lengthy discussion with william hague. we have a lot of ideas on the table and some of them i am confident will come to maturity by the time we meet in rome.

others may take a little more of a gestation period, but they are no less a part of the discussion. we are determined that the syrian opposition is not going to be dangling in the wind, wondering where support is or if it is coming. we are determined to change the calculation on the ground. even as i emphasized that, it is the policy of the u.s. and our allies to pursue a political resolution. that is the best way to save lives and minimize the disruption of the region, to maximize the possibilities of all people being represented appropriately in the democratic process.

we don't have the ingredients, putting forth the efforts, we are no less committed. but at the same time, we will not let the opposition not have its ability to have a voice properly heard in this process. i look forward to rome because the thing to be able to accomplish something. thank you all. >> people were travelling. either traveling looking for a job, maybe they were on their

way to the grand canyon, working in california. at first, route 66 was a way to get somewhere. your destination was in california. later on, after all these tourist traps and attractions and the cafes and the motels and the trading posts, it almost became like a big amusement park along route 66. it became the destination. can we go to the beach in california? let's go down route 66. it is like a big long amusement park. >> get your kicks on route 66 in albuquerque, mexico. book tv and american history tv look behind the scenes in albuquerque.

>> this is a little more than half an hour. host: our guest is tom shoop to talk was more about the sequester. that is up to the beginning of this. what is the sequester? guest: it is an across-the-board cut in federal agency spending, so it gives very little flexibility for agencies.

that had until the end of the year. if that did not happen, then a sequester would go into effect at the beginning of 2013. as we know, the super committee did not get its job done. the sequester was slated to go into effect at the beginning of this year. in the fiscal cliff negotiations, congress did not come up with a short-term fix. they extended it until the end of february. host: how do the cuts take place? guest: they are cumulative. it is a certain percentage of what remains of the fiscal year. it is not like a shutdown situation where things stopped abruptly. they take place over the course of several months. a lot of the impact will not be felt right away. host: this is already complex enough. it gets more complex and knowing that about a month from now, the temporary funding of all the government expires, and you put the two together? guest: that is another hard deadline.

that is the continuing resolution that is currently funding government in the absence of an official budget for agencies. that is when congress has to decide what is going to happen with the rest of the fiscal year. it is lagging about one month behind the sequester deadline. it could go into effect while congress is continuing to negotiate over the final budget. host: our guest is tom shoup. he will be with us until about 9:00 eastern time to take your calls. in addition to our regular phone numbers, we have a separate line to talk about the sequester, for federal employees, they are affected in washington, d.c. and around the country. we want to hear what you are bracing for. tom shoup, explain how the government prepares for something like a sequester. guest: it takes place over an extended period of time.

there are a bunch of different things that get done. they look at contract spending. agencies look at hiring freezes. for the past months, it is clear that agencies have been slowing down their spending, particularly in the defense department. if it does go into effect, they will do things like furlough employees. there is a 30 day warning. they have to give employees before that can take effect. that is when they negotiate with labor unions. it is usually written communication. host: we're hoping to learn about non-defense areas of the government as well. what should we think of as a non-defense areas? who is going to get cut? guest: pretty much everybody,

with certain exceptions. the big exception is the veterans affairs department, which is carved out in the legislation. they are not subject to cuts. there are also other areas that are not subject to cuts, like social security and medicaid. medicare is subject to separate out of about two%. other than that, it pretty much affects everybody across the board. host: some of the facts and figures, from "the wall street journal" -- anything you want to add to those numbers? guest: the only thing i would add is that it is not clear entirely what the effects will be in terms of employees. they have not said things specifically. there could be a fairly wide range.

it is not guaranteed that every agency will furlough its employees. some have already said they would, such as the defense department. last week, ray lahood, the transportation secretary, said that employees would be subject to flood. the government accountability office says that there will not be furloughs. some agencies can get it done through hiring freezes. host: explain the role of the office of management and budget. guest: they provide overall direction to agencies as to what their budgets are, how much is subject to sequester, and how it will go into effect. host: let's hear from frank, from pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: good morning. i'm calling to find out why it is taking so long to get this through and stop trying to block the president.

when the banks were bailout, calling it was a three page bill for $700 billion. here all they want to do is cut $85 billion from the budget. i think all of these republicans do not want to do anything that is beneficial to the average person. thank you. guest: that is a good question. part of the reason is that congress tends to wait until the last minute to do things if they can. it is possible we can see action this week. the other thing is, with the sequester, it is a little bit different from other situations, in that it will not be immediate. in some cases, there is a school thought that says, agencies can manage this, at least four months, while congress works. in some cases, there is a school thought that says, agencies can manage this, at least four months, while congress works. there is less incentive for them to get this job done.

the bottom line is, there are substantial differences between the two sides on exactly the mix between revenues and cut. host: we have a group of students this morning who had some questions for you about the sequester. the cspan bus is finishing up a two week tour through ohio and virginia. today, the final stop is mount vernon high school in fairfax county, virginia. over this period, we are going to talk to a group of students from the bus mount vernon high school was founded in 1939 and is located about 50 miles south of washington, d.c.. more than 1900 students in grades 9-12 attend the school. we want to thank cox communications for sponsoring today's visit.

gabrielle is on the line, she is a student at mount vernon high school. go ahead. caller: how will sequestration affect the military's ability is to meet its commitments around the world? guest: military leaders have indicated that this will have a success -- a substantial impact on their ability to conduct operations. the navy has already stated that it has pulled an aircraft carrier that was headed for the persian gulf record tippled that back. the navy -- they pulled that back. the army says there will cut back severely on training. according to military leaders, this could have a big impact on them, partly because they are already under situation under the budget control act where they are making a fairly steep cuts in operations. they are trying to deal with the situation overseas in places like afghanistan. host: if congress does nothing, is there a chance that they could pass something in the

defense area? guest: it is always possible. that is something house republicans have wanted for some time, to put cuts on domestic spending and protect the defense department. it is also possible that congress could move simply to give agencies more discretion in implementing the cuts and eliminate this aspect where it is across the board,, what the president characterized as a meat cleaver approach. host: more students are coming up. they are with the c-span.org bus. a federal worker is online. -- on the line. where do you work? caller: and airforce base. compared to last year, aren't we spending the same amount of money as we did last year? this is just a cut in the rate of growth?

isn't that right? guest: that is correct. i am not entirely certain whether at the end the day there is more spending this year than last year, but under the budget control act, spending caps are supposed to go down a year after year. there are supposed to the overall cuts in federal spending. it is important to remember that it is true, that these are measured against an overall increase in the rate of spending. host: thomas is with us by phone, he is a student. caller: hall sequestration affect students that need financial aid to attend college in the fall? guest: it could have an impact on the education department. i'm not sure that it will mean cutbacks in student loans themselves. it could affect housing. employees could be subject to furlough. there could be other cuts to the education budget. there could be a variety of effects on students if

sequestration goes into effect. host: will states be in a position to help out? guest: it depends on individual state budget situations, which until recently, have not been great. they are beginning to recover from the effects of the recession. a lot of governors are seeing that this could have an adverse impact on them. host: how is it decided to get furloughed at a particular agency? can you explain that? guest: generally, it is across the board. it is little bit of untrained territory because furloughs have not been attempted on the scale in a long time. there are some things that remain to be worked out, including whether there is a security exemption or protection of life and property, certain people not being furloughed, but in most cases, it will take all civilian employees.

uniformed military is exempt from a furlough. it will not affect every agency equally. some agencies could have up to 22 days of furloughs. some will have less. host: how about benefits for federal employes? guest: in general, federal employee benefits are protected. there are some areas that could be affected. if you're not getting paid, that could affect on employees' contribution to a 401k. host: james is on the line from arizona, a republican caller. caller: how're you doing today? thank you for taking my call. my question is, i have a couple -- one of them is, we live in a very dangerous world. all we have to do is pick up a newspaper and understand that it gets more dangerous every day. i'm retired from the army. i am wondering how it is going to affect my benefits from the va. i saw a photograph a couple of

days ago on a norfolk, virginia, and aircraft carrier parked out there, with maintenance and not being able to be done and one that is not more than five or six years old. i think it was the uss abraham lincoln. and of the enterprise is out there. -- i know the enterprise is out there. the democrats and republicans do not get what is really going on with our government. these are elected officials that should be there for us. we put them in office.

i really do not think that they understand that if we show weakness in our military, we broadcast that all over the world. host: a broader view about the cuts. guest: veterans benefits are protected under sequestration, good news for you. they would not be affected. as for the broader question of military readiness and congressional responsiveness to that, there are serious issues at stake. one thing that the defense department has pointed out is that it is not just the sequester for them that presents a problem. under the continuing resolution, they are operating under last year's budget levels and budget restrictions, which do not apply very well to the set -- to

the situation they are under this year, where troops are being drawn down. they say it will have a serious effect on readiness. host: back to the c-span boss. one of the 1900 or more students at mount vernon high school in fairfax county, virginia. go ahead, michelle. caller: how will sequestration affect families who receive federal assistance? guest: most forms of federal assistance are protected under sequestration. social security is ok, and medicaid is fine. there are some areas such as unemployment benefits that are subject to the sequester or there could be an impact on families. there are a host of ordinary federal programs outside of the assistant -- assistance that could affect individuals and families. host: 2 donald in virginia beach, a federal worker.

caller: i am curious with everything that is going on, one of my worries is being able to support my family. if these cuts have an affect on the receiving pay or leave without pay, is there anything that will be done without that? you have tons of people who will not be able to afford to keep their houses or feed their families. host: are you in the military? caller: know, a d.o.t. employee. -- no, a dod employee. guest: civilian employees will be hurt the most. it means a direct loss in income. under the law, and lead a cannot be cut. the rate of pay cannot be cut. their compensation can be cut by preventing them from working by as much as one day a week for the rest of the fiscal year.

that could amount to 20% cut in people's income. that could have a very real impact. host: there is a question on twitter that is related to all of this. has there ever been a situation where a federal worker did not get back pay it? his back pay part of the equation? guest: it very well could be. traditionally, in these situations where there has been shut down or a lapse in appropriations, then they were made whole at some point. with furloughs, that might be a tricky thing to do. under the current budget situation, things are very tight. congress has shown little inclination to boost employee pay or benefits in any way in recent years. i think that would be a tougher sell. host: jerry from north carolina, an independent scholar. caller: -- an independent caller. caller: i wanted to give some

information, i am retired veteran. what is happening more is that there is more of the blame game, more demagoguery, morse during the pants off of people, when really this small amount that they are trying to cut from will not really affect the people as bad as they are saying. what they are really doing is shifting blame. instead of the president running around and spending millions of dollars on air force one and try to take it to republicans, he should be sitting down at the capitol with republicans and democrats and coming up with a better deal. guest: it is true that there is a sense in which this could be much worse -- much worse than it is. it takes place over an extended period of time. it is a cut factored in with the increase in the rate of

spending. it is not a huge, automatic, immediate reduction. there is a sense in which the situation, there are worse budget situations. certainly, the administration is doing -- is doing its best to try to highlight the ill effects that would happen under sequester. they're out there giving the worst-case scenario of how things might unfold. there is still a huge gap between the two sides as to how this ought to be addressed. host: tom shoup will be with us for about another 20 minutes. he is talking to us about the sequester, the 85 billion across the court -- the $85 billion across-the-board cuts that are set to kick in this friday. our guest was a supervising editor at macmillan publishing. he is currently editor in chief at government executive magazine. we do have another student on a line with our bus from mount vernon high school in fairfax county in virginia.

anna, go ahead. caller: hubble sequestration a fact -- how will sequestration defect school lunch programs? guest: i'm not sure that specific program. on the whole, assistance programs are somewhat protected under sequester. there could be effected. i am not sure about that specific program. host: patricia, a democrat from pennsylvania. caller: i would like to know with all the talk they are having about the cuts, why do they never talk about all the money they give to foreign countries? why can they not cut that?

host: we got that point. is foreign-aid part of the equation? guest: yes, it would be subject to cut. it always comes up in discussions about the budget. people think that is an area to cut first. it is a relatively small slice of the budget, so even a "you eliminate it entirely, it would not have a huge effect on the overall -- even a call you cut that entirely, it would not have a huge effect on the overall budget. host: the white house report came out last month, a state- by-state report about the facts of sequestration. this speaks to alabama, teachers and schools, public health, child care, head start, vaccines for kids, all of that, and more, being cut. where else can folks find information about the details of the sequester? for federal employees, how about the process itself? you mentioned they will get written notice.

is there a place they can reach out? guest: i will plug our own webstie. we have -- website. we have regular reports. the office of management and budget has specific agency budgets. for federal employees, the office of personnel management has a lot of information on their website, especially about furloughs and how they might unfold and how they will affect things like benefits. host: the story in the washington post -- guest: presidential appointees are not subject to furloughs under any circumstances. i think some have already indicated that if their agencies have to furlough employes, that they themselves will take a pay cut and returned to the treasury. i would be very surprised you

did not see that happen across the board. they are among the groups, as are members of congress, or not subject to having their pay cut. host: a republican form -- from florida, dennis. caller: the question about the $85 billion that we're spending, that being difficult of a $1 trillion deficit -- what does that say about our current state of government? host: what you mean, that it is

not enough? caller: why are we having such difficulty obtaining something like this, the $85 billion. it is only a bit of our deficit spending. are we in that terrible condition? guest: there is a school of thought among republicans that this is not the global of cut to take. -- not a big local of a cut to take. part of the problem is that it is not the size of a cut, but the fact that is across the board and no flexibility. you could see a circumstance develop in which congress says, ok, we will be more specific about what can be cut, or we

will give managers more flexibility about what they can cut, but still leaves the same level of cuts in place. host: a student is with us, adele. good morning. caller: my question is, what is the expected effect of sequestration on the financial market? guest: there appears to be less concern in the financial markets about the potential sequester then there was either about the debt ceiling being breached or the potential shutdown of government. that is one of the reasons why you're seeing relatively little action on this, because there is a consensus that this could go into effect and not cause a major problem in the financial markets. that is partly because it is not that steep level of cut. it takes a long time, relatively long time for all of

the impacts to be felt. you could go for a month or so and not see a major impact on federal spending. host: how about the financial markets relationship back here in washington, and sequestration and government employees? maybe the sec or the treasury department -- are they seeing cuts? guest: all these agencies will be subject to the sequester and potential for lows. it will vary a little bit agency by agency, in terms of how they will implement it. especially when it comes to personnel. in certain agencies, they can absorb the cuts by doing the hiring freeze or slowing down spending on certain projects are not starting certain things. they would not be required to furlough employees. basically, with certain exemptions, everybody will be subject to a percentage across

the board. host: you mentioned social security is not impacted? guest: social security employees could be, but social security is not. offices might have to cut back on hours, but benefits themselves are affected. host: will check come out on time? guest: that -- so security has a very good track record with that. caller: good morning. i would like to know what effect the furloughs would have on calculations on retirement benefits for federal employees. or even their health benefits. host: we touched little bit on the street guest: -- on this. guest: health benefits would be protected. retirement benefits would not be affected by a furlough, because they are based on an employee's overall rate of pay, not the

actual salary that they get in any individual paycheck. things like federal -- one of the things it is based on is your highest three years of average salary. that would not be affected. your salary rate would continue even if there was a temporary cut in pay. host: allen rushing has been preparing students for participation in this program. we have heard from several students at mount vernon high school. here is kevin. caller: how will sequestration affect parents on overseas deployment? guest: it depends. generally, they will not be affected. if you are a uniformed military personnel, the budget control act give the president the

authority to exempt military -- military folks from the sequester. civilian employees in combat zones are going to be exempted if there is a furlough situation. in general, overseas defense department employees are not effected. host: we used the phrase across the board to describe the cuts. somebody who described themselves as right-wing rights in on twitter -- is there anything else you want to add? guest: medicare is not protected. it takes a smaller percentage of it than the rest of government, but it is subject to about 2% cut. the other programs, congress decided -- this goes back to the first sequestration legislation in the mid 1980's, that programs, benefit programs, by and large, would not be affected -- not to have a dramatic impact on people.

host: jeff is a federal worker from indiana. what is your question or comment? caller: they are trying to make all the cuts. there are huge number of federal employes ready for retirement. incentive for the retirement program is antiquated. it is a very small amount. it has not been raised for 20 years. i would think that they would really want to implement this during this troubled time. guest: overall, v-slips are voluntary early retirements. certain agencies have taken this approach already. they might offer incentives to cut down on the overall size of the workforce. as they are under continued budget pressure, because even going forward, even without the sequester, there are increasingly tight budget caps, and is very likely you'll see

agencies do that, because they prefer to do that as opposed to going through a reduction in force process, which can be messy and expensive. host: a student question from jon miller. caller: hubble sequestration affect the safety of the food supply? -- how well sequestration affect the safety of the food supply? guest: food safety inspectors could be subject to furloughs. it will not mean that they will be shut down. it will not mean that right away, all food will just go out of the marketplace without being inspected. there certainly is the possibility that there could be an adverse impact on the way that operation works. host: jr is calling on the independent line. caller: good morning.

thank you for c-span. my question is this -- i have been looking, trying to find as much information as i could about sequestration, going back to when it was first part of the bargain for an increase in the spending of over $2 trillion in the debt ceiling debate. this was agreed upon by the president, from the video i have seen, and then he went so far -- in november 2011 -- he said he would veto any attempt to change the sequestration. now it seems that there is this a chicken little type of disguise rhetoric, we might have to act like cut spending in washington, d.c.. i think this was an attempt to basically make it impossible

going forward to ever be able to ask for reductions in the rate of spending. i would like your comments on that. i'm very interested. guest: the president would say -- and i think he has said some are in the area of $2.50 trillion in spending cuts they have agreed to over the course of the next 10 years -- and as we said before, you have to factor in rate of growth in spending -- there are a lot of different ways you can slice and dice the numbers. the problem with sequestration is that it is an approach that neither side really wanted. both sides now characterize this in an attempt to characterize the blame for the other side, an approach that is nonsensical in that it cuts across the board and does not make intelligent cuts in the way that agencies spend money. that is where we are now. this was not supposed to be a process that was supposed to be

implemented. it is a process that would be so terrible that would cause members of congress to reach an agreement. the problem is, we reached a point where they have been unable to reach an agreement, and it is starting to look that maybe this is not that bad an option. maybe it does provide an opportunity to cut spending, albeit in a way that people do not find desirable. host: take a broader view, the 20,000-foot view -- what does this whole process me to the future of spending cuts? guest: we have reached a point where the two sides are looking at something that was supposed to be off the table as may be something that could theoretically happen. as we go forward, there are additional cuts, reductions in the budget built into the budget control act.

this is actually the only year where the sequester in domestic discretionary spending goes into effect. in subsequent years, the budget caps that lord, and it is congress's job how to cut the money. that opens up the opportunity for a more rational approach to the process. right now, we're sort of stuck in this interim period. host: our next student on the line, go ahead. caller: my question is, will sequestration affect federal funding for transportation, especially roads? guest: yes, transportation funding, i believe, it is affected, pretty much across the board. you could see a situation where that could come into effect. there is a highway trust fund. i do not know exactly how that is affected. there may or may not be impact there.

they talked mainly about the impact on air travel. host: "usa today" talks about that -- anything else to add on that? guest: they highlighted last week the transportation defects. there are a couple of different ways -- air-traffic control, the talk about closing some towers for some period of time. with a reduction in the number of air-traffic controllers, this could affect overall operations of the system. the other went remember is transportation security administration -- they said their security screeners would be subject to furlough, which could result in longer wait times. >> c-span, brought to you by your televisioov